Blended science: The rewards and challenges of integrating the science disciplines for instruction

School Science and Mathematics, Oct 1998 by McComas, William F, Wang, HsingChi A

This paper provides an overview of blended science instruction, a term used to represent instructional plans by which the science disciplines are connected to each other and occasionally to other school subjects. The central rationales for such instruction, the historical development of blended instructional plans, and a review of the current proponents and forms of such instruction are provided. The primary varieties of blended instruction, including integrated, unified, and coordinated science, are compared and contrasted. Special attention is given to the major recommendations in support of blended science coming from philosophical, psychological, pedagogical, and pragmatic domains. The conclusions section includes some of the challenges facing those who plan an integrated teaching focus.

As the pendulum of educational innovation continues to swing, gaining renewed prominence (Kelly, 1993) is the science teaching plan in which the typically discrete science disciplines are taught in some connected fashion. In this article, any such approach is termed "blended science instruction." This label has been chosen not to invent a new expression but to avoid the confusion resulting from the myriad names commonly linked with such instructional plans.

For instance, the frequently applied labels of integrated, unified, and coordinated science instruction have so little shared meaning from one application or article to another that comparing one blended plan with another by name alone is impossible. This lack of a generalized label has blocked a full analysis of blended science teaching approaches. As the attention of the science teaching community again focuses on blended science instruction, it is enlightening to review the history and common strengths and weakness of such plans. This review should serve to inform and enliven the debate regarding the utility and implications of all forms of blended science teaching.

The Central Rationale for Blending Science Instruction

One of the primary justifications for blending the sciences for instruction is found in an examination of nature itself. In the natural world, the common science disciplines are not isolated from each other or from other intellectual fields, as they are in school. Such separation is an artifact of the way in which science is studied and taught, not a reflection of its true nature. A holistic view of the sciences provides students a richer intellectual understanding than the typical "layer cake" approach, in which the content of one science discipline is studied each year in the secondary environment or from unit to unit in elementary school. Explicit connections between content learned from one year to another or from unit to unit are absent. Advocates of blended instructional plans see these plans as effective ways of helping students apply science in their daily lives by teaching science in a connected and contextrich fashion. All of the plans for blending science instruction are designed to cut through the boarders imposed by traditional instruction to some degree. Horton (1981) has argued that this approach may lead students to a more meaningful learning experience, enabling them to reach higher levels of scientific literacy.

Reconnecting Instructional Disciplines: Historical Development

The initial advocacy for blended instruction did not involve science education alone. From 1875 to 1883, the child-centered curriculum advocate, Francis Parker, fought against what he called unnatural learning. Parker believed that the way knowledge is naturally encountered by children in daily life should form the basis of learning in schools (Longstreet & Shane, 1993). He recommended that the curriculum involve relevant current events to enhance learners' intellectual abilities. At about the same time, De Garmo (1907) asserted that schools should teach separate subjects to fulfill pupils' need for content knowledge, while illustrating the connections between the disciplines. Herbart (1895), also an advocate of a life-based curriculum, criticized the fragmentation of school curricula resulting when subjects are taught separately. He promoted the notion of the unity of knowledge and claimed that curriculum fragmentation should be replaced by instructional strategies focusing on integrative knowledge. These early views led educators to debate the relative values of a discrete subject orientation versus a blended one (Longstreet & Shane, 1993).

By the 1920s, curriculum integration of one form or another was widely advocated (Eisner, 1992), paving the way for the attack against the rigidity and rote memorization of traditional subject-centered curricula championed by the rise of progressive education. Kilpatrick (1951), who was influenced by Dewey (1900), Thorndike (1913), and other educators of his time, proposed that any meaningful experience-intellectual, physical, or aesthetic-should serve as the center for organizing instructional units. Eventually, Kilpatrick's ideas, including the "project method," became joined with social studies to blend subject matter with relevant social issues (McNeil, 1985). Both the 26th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education in 1930 and the Eight Year Study by the Progressive Education Association advocated teaching all school subjects in an interconnected fashion based on students' needs. In spite of the strong and eloquent advocacy for educational plans that cut across discipline boundaries, most high schools at the time still adopted the subject-specific focus (Kain, 1993).